It is noteworthy that Chinese companies operate across integrated supply chains, meaning there are almost no relevant local or non-Chinese workers along the value chain. When expanding abroad, Chinese companies bring their own Chinese workforce. It is noteworthy that China is among the countries that heavily oppose laws for transparent supply chains.
In the mentioned case in Brazil, the authorities found that the Chinese migrant] workers could not leave their dormitories without permission, were forced to work long hours without weekly breaks, and were deprived of wages and passports. Their living quarters were overcrowded and lacked basic amenities, including sufficient toilets and refrigeration for food. Brazilian labour authorities stated that the workers are victims of human trafficking.
Such conditions are typical for China. There is ample evidence for forced labour in China’s Xinjiang region and across the country as well as in Chinese companies operating abroad.
Yes, we are. The initial argument was about Chinas huge trade surplus which supposedly is only driven by state sponsorship, which I countered. It then pivoted towards China, forcing companies to “work” with local companies, which essentially meant these companies receiving Western tech knowledge.
Now people bring up the valid point of bad or in case of the Uyghurs horrible humanitarian conditions in China. However, that has not been part of the debate up to now.
And as I said: I fully support the criticism of working conditions in China. But on a strategic level, the CCP handled transforming China from a simple manufacturing hub to technological frontrunner excellently.
AFAIK, it depends on which segment of society you look at. People living near urban and industrial centers, mainly along the coast, certainly have seen their standard of living rising drastically over the last decades. People in the rural interior of China not so much. And then there’s of course the whole genocide of the Uyghurs in the west of China …
People living near urban and industrial centers, mainly along the coast, certainly have seen their standard of living rising drastically over the last decades.
Not trying to drag this out so much, as I think we both agree essentially, but wouldn’t this not also have been the case when they had been working in a local factory run by a ‘Western’ company instead?
In essence yes. But the growth of the country’s economy without local technical knowledge would almost entirely depend on these outside investments. There could be a variety of reasons why foreign companies might close up shop and move elsewhere, leaving just huge empty factories behind.
I fully agree with your point, but it’s technology we are talking about right now, not humanitarian conditions.
@einkorn@feddit.org
No, we are not talking about technology. The humanitarian situation in Chinese supply chains is devastating. Brazil sued China carmaker BYD over ‘slave-like’ conditions in a Brazilian plant this year.
It is noteworthy that Chinese companies operate across integrated supply chains, meaning there are almost no relevant local or non-Chinese workers along the value chain. When expanding abroad, Chinese companies bring their own Chinese workforce. It is noteworthy that China is among the countries that heavily oppose laws for transparent supply chains.
In the mentioned case in Brazil, the authorities found that the Chinese migrant] workers could not leave their dormitories without permission, were forced to work long hours without weekly breaks, and were deprived of wages and passports. Their living quarters were overcrowded and lacked basic amenities, including sufficient toilets and refrigeration for food. Brazilian labour authorities stated that the workers are victims of human trafficking.
Such conditions are typical for China. There is ample evidence for forced labour in China’s Xinjiang region and across the country as well as in Chinese companies operating abroad.
Yes, we are. The initial argument was about Chinas huge trade surplus which supposedly is only driven by state sponsorship, which I countered. It then pivoted towards China, forcing companies to “work” with local companies, which essentially meant these companies receiving Western tech knowledge.
Now people bring up the valid point of bad or in case of the Uyghurs horrible humanitarian conditions in China. However, that has not been part of the debate up to now.
And as I said: I fully support the criticism of working conditions in China. But on a strategic level, the CCP handled transforming China from a simple manufacturing hub to technological frontrunner excellently.
True. I was just confused by calling it the best move for ‘the Chinese’. Because for ‘the Chinese’, I’d argue it didn’t make a difference.
AFAIK, it depends on which segment of society you look at. People living near urban and industrial centers, mainly along the coast, certainly have seen their standard of living rising drastically over the last decades. People in the rural interior of China not so much. And then there’s of course the whole genocide of the Uyghurs in the west of China …
Not trying to drag this out so much, as I think we both agree essentially, but wouldn’t this not also have been the case when they had been working in a local factory run by a ‘Western’ company instead?
In essence yes. But the growth of the country’s economy without local technical knowledge would almost entirely depend on these outside investments. There could be a variety of reasons why foreign companies might close up shop and move elsewhere, leaving just huge empty factories behind.